FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CAMERON IRELAND LIMITED TRADING AS CAMERON IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Pay claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union lodged a claim for a pay-increase on behalf of 120 Workers covering the twelve months up to July 2013. The Company insists that any pay-increase could only be conceded if there were an equal cost-offsetting arrangement in place. However, all proposals put forward by the Company were rejected by the Workers at ballot.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th December, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th February, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in such a strong financial position that it has recently purchased an adjoining site presumably for expansion reasons. Other evidence exists that confirm that the Company is doing exceptionally well and capable of offering the Workers a pay increase that is fully justified.
2. Monthly pay remains a great difficulty for the Workers and many want it removed from any future cost-offsetting offers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company has suggested all of the cost-offsetting proposals and has even introduced a partial performance metric in order to reach agreement.
2.The metric targets were achieved during 2011, 2012 and 2013 during a period of wage freeze yet the Union rejects a pay deal contingent on the metrics continuing to being achieved into the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for an increase in pay with effect from 1stJuly 2012. The claim has been the subject of extensive negotiations under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. A number of offers proposed by the Company have been balloted upon and rejected by the Union. The Labour Relations Commission put forward a proposal dated 8thOctober 2013 which provided for a pay increase over a period of three years in return for identified cost-offsetting measures. This was not acceptable to the Union and the issue was referred to the Court.
Having considered the position of both sides the Court is of the view that the Labour Relations Commission proposal of 8thOctober 2013 should be amended by the following:-
Retrospective
The Court recommends that the proposals under the heading“Retrospective”should be replaced with the following:
- 2.5% increase on all earnings between 1stJuly 2012 and 31stJuly 2013.
Forward Agreement Effective 1stAugust 2013 – Appendix 3
The Court recommends that the 1.5% increase for each of the three years should be replaced by:
- 2% increase on rate for period 1stAugust 2013 – 31stJuly 2014
2% increase on rate for period 1stAugust 2014 – 31stJuly 2015
2% increase on rate for period 1stAugust 2015 – 31stJuly 2016
The Court notes that based on past experience and future expectations there is no reason to believe that the further 1% increase each year based on attainment of performance targets as contained in the proposals will not be achieved. The Company stated that non-achievement of the performance targets would be “exceptional” and it committed to jointly review the position each January and “mutually agree” performance levels.
With the above recommended amendments to the 8thOctober 2013 Labour Relations Commission proposals the Court recommends that both parties should accept the amended proposals in their entirety in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th March, 2014______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.